Evolution taken on Faith

[Sunstone]

"But that's called 'adaptation', it's not evolution. There's no change of kinds."

:biglaugh: The dude doesn't even understand evolution, yet he's pretending to know more about it than anyone.

 

[Sunstone]

Still waiting for you to list the top three or four books on evolution that have influenced you most, Pegg.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it takes much more blind faith to think a video like the one in the OP isn't a propaganda piece than it takes to accept the fact and theory of evolution.

 

[Thana]

Still waiting for you to list the top three or four books on evolution that have influenced you most, Pegg.

Can't you just assume she's got a very limited understanding of evolution and just answer her question?

I have one. It is impressive what can be done with selective editing and picking and choosing citations to display them out of context.

I don't see how any of it is out of context.. They were asked questions and they answered. Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Sunstone]

Can't you just assume she's got a very limited understanding of evolution and just answer her question?

By the way, what three or four books on evolution have been most influential in forming your own views of it? Just curious.

 

[Thana]

By the way, what three or four books on evolution have been most influential in forming your own views of it? Just curious.

I haven't read any, That's why I asked for the question to be answered.

 

[Sunstone]

I haven't read any...

That's too bad. I would like someday to discuss evolution with someone who actually knows what they're talking about, but who does not accept the Theory. I think that would be an interesting conversation. However, discussing it with people who don't know what they are talking about is repetitious and boring. They all say the same things, and the things they say betray an ignorance of the subject matched only by their arrogance in thinking they know something about it.

...That's why I asked for the question to be answered.

Which question? She asked more than one.

 

[Thana]

That's too bad. I would like someday to discuss evolution with someone who actually knows what they're talking about, but who does not accept the Theory. I think that would be an interesting conversation. However, discussing it with people who don't know what they are talking about is repetitious and boring. They all say the same things, and the things they say betray an ignorance of the subject matched only by their arrogance in thinking they know something about it.

That's fine, I suppose. Though.. I'm not denying evolution. I assume it's very probable.

Which question? She asked more than one.

In a round about way, She asked how evolution was proven without it being technically observable.

I assume it's the effects that are observed and then Evolution is determined the most plausible cause?

I'm curious, But if you don't want to discuss it I understand. I've grown tired of explaining my faith, So I expect the same happens to evolutionists.

 

[Sunstone]

In a round about way, She asked how evolution was proven without it being technically observable.

I assume it's the effects that are observed and then Evolution is determined the most plausible cause?

In a way, that's a fairly accurate assumption, Thana, but perhaps only in a way.

I can't give you a full explanation here, because that would take me all night to write several pages of text. But perhaps this will do, grossly simplified though it is:

The sciences assess the value of a theory according to the extent that the theory makes reliably accurate predictions about empirical fact.

So, for instance, the theory of evolution predicted that once upon a time lived an intermediate form of animal halfway between a sea-animal and a land-animal. The theory even predicted the most likely age of the animal -- how long ago it would have lived. And it also predicted the kinds of rocks the animal's fossils might be found in.

All those predictions came true when the fossil of a certain species of fish was discovered about a decade ago in Northern Canada. So, that's just one instance of when the theory has predicted that something would be the case, and that something turned out indeed to be the case.

But why is prediction so important to the sciences? I could write a short book about that, but the gist of it is that, logically speaking, a theory that makes false predictions is a false theory. So, if a theory makes only true predictions, then there is a chance that it's true. And if a theory makes thousands of predictions, all of which come true, then there's a very good chance the theory is true.

The Theory of Evolution is like that last kind of theory. Actual thousands of predictions based on the theory have proved to be true. It has proved itself time and time again to be a reliable guide to observable facts.

I hope that helps, although it's four in the morning here, and I'm not entirely awake as I write this.

 

[Looncall]

That's fine, I suppose. Though.. I'm not denying evolution. I assume it's very probable.



In a round about way, She asked how evolution was proven without it being technically observable.

I assume it's the effects that are observed and then Evolution is determined the most plausible cause?

I'm curious, But if you don't want to discuss it I understand. I've grown tired of explaining my faith, So I expect the same happens to evolutionists.

The past leaves traces in the present. The genetics of modern organisms show the genetic history of their lineages. This amounts to observation of evolution.

Evolution is observable, and has been observed, in organisms with short generation times.

This "not observable" canard is a sign that you have been conned.

 

[Thana]

In a way, that's a fairly accurate assumption, Thana, but perhaps only in a way.

I can't give you a full explanation here, because that would take me all night to write several pages of text. But perhaps this will do, grossly simplified though it is:

The sciences assess the value of a theory according to the extent that the theory makes reliably accurate predictions about empirical fact.

So, for instance, the theory of evolution predicted that once upon a time lived an intermediate form of animal halfway between a sea-animal and a land-animal. The theory even predicted the most likely age of the animal -- how long ago it would have lived. And it also predicted the kinds of rocks the animal's fossils might be found in.

All those predictions came true when the fossil of a certain species of fish was discovered about a decade ago in Northern Canada. So, that's just one instance of when the theory has predicted that something would be the case, and that something turned out indeed to be the case.

But why is prediction so important to the sciences? I could write a short book about that, but the gist of it is that, logically speaking, a theory that makes false predictions is a false theory. So, if a theory makes only true predictions, then there is a chance that it's true. And if a theory makes thousands of predictions, all of which come true, then there's a very good chance the theory is true.

The Theory of Evolution is like that last kind of theory. Actual thousands of predictions based on the theory have proved to be true. It has proved itself time and time again to be a reliable guide to observable facts.

I hope that helps, although it's four in the morning here, and I'm not entirely awake as I write this.

No that's exactly what I was looking for, Thank you. I appreciate you explaining =)

So in an oversimplified sense, the debate against the validity of Evolution is because it's plausible that the evidence could be coincidental? (Unlikely, But possible)?

 

[Sunstone]

So in an oversimplified sense, the debate against the validity of Evolution is because it's plausible that the evidence could be coincidental? (Unlikely, But possible)?

I wouldn't be surprised if some people have argued against evolution that way. But it would be difficult to do so, Thana, because the evidence -- the shear quantity of evidence, if you count every last bit of it -- would fill several libraries. You'd need to argue all of it was merely coincidental, and that would be quite a chore.

If I were a theist and concerned about evolution, I would probably wind of thinking of evolution as the way God brought about all the remarkable diversity of life on this planet. That is, the means he created for doing it.

 

[Sunstone]

So in an oversimplified sense, the debate against the validity of Evolution is because it's plausible that the evidence could be coincidental? (Unlikely, But possible)?

The video linked to in the OP is trying to make the argument that (1) evolution predicts transitions between "types" or "kinds" of animals; (2) that no such transitions have ever been observed; and (3) therefore, anyone who accepts evolution must do so on blind faith.

The argument suffers from, among other things, the fact that "types" or "kinds" of animals have nothing to do with the evolutionary sciences. They are concepts as unrelated to those sciences as peacocks are to bond trading on Wall Street.

 

[Pegg]

Still waiting for you to list the top three or four books on evolution that have influenced you most, Pegg.

im not influenced by evolution...not in the slightest.

 

[Pegg]

The past leaves traces in the present. The genetics of modern organisms show the genetic history of their lineages. This amounts to observation of evolution.

Evolution is observable, and has been observed, in organisms with short generation times.

This "not observable" canard is a sign that you have been conned.

what organisms have you observed change from one type into another?

 

[FearGod]

Here is a MUST WATCH video.

Science is based on 'observable and demonstrable evidence. But evolution is not based on such evidence....it requires faith - blind faith at that.


Watch the video and decide for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83ROf8coSU

My observation after watching this video is

"Don't ever believe an atheist"

It is indeed a shame that they try to use science in away as to spread atheism,they are preachers of the 21th century,they are defending prostitution,sexual relationship between men and i watched one of them saying if a sister loved her brother and engaged in sexual relationship and they don't cause any harm to others then what the problem with it.

 

[SkylarHunter]

I'm not Pegg but let me give you three books to consider:

- Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe
- Signature in the cell by Stephen Meyer
- Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells

 

[Ouroboros]

Here is a MUST WATCH video.

The same video again? This is the second time in two weeks!

It's produced by The Way of the Master. Here's the original: The Way of the Master

 

[Sunstone]

im not influenced by evolution...not in the slightest.

Don't play dumb, Pegg. It's beneath a child, let alone an adult. I'm still waiting for your answer.

 

[Looncall]

what organisms have you observed change from one type into another?

What do you mean by "type"?

Lots of things actually happen that I do not personally observe.